Re: The Dark Enlightenment

25th January 2015, 22:42

It's easy to dismiss it as a fringe internet tendency with absolutely no contextual relevance whatsoever. This is far from the case: The "dark enlightenment" is nothing more than the honest, conscious and identifiable manifestation of ideological trends capitalism has been predisposed to since Neoliberalism. The 'dark enlightenment' is well alive not only ideologically in our society but has become more and more definitive of our present epoch.

The fringe nature of this 'internet tendency' does not stem from the ridiculousness of what they claim, but the ridiculousness of its conscious adherence monolithically. Mark my words, dark enlightenment at this present rate is the future of our society.

Originally Posted by TheBigREDOne View Post
Well any idea on how to counter this?
Unconditionally through the re-vitalization of the spirit of Communism.
Originally Posted by Atsumari View Post
It is rather funny to see radicals on both ends of the spectrum try to associate the other radical with the dominating ideology.
Except "dark enlightenment" is not the dominating ideology, it is a real pretense to ideological hegemony. It is a tendency logically consequential of the political and social developments of the very late 20th century. Tell me again about how civic values aren't gradually waning in the west, how political standards which would have been impossible fifty years ago are becoming hegemonic in Europe. Tell me, Atsumari how the facade of liberal political correctness isn't losing its prolonged vitality. The fact is that liberal democracys existence is becoming irrational - capital demands a new authoritarian political apparatus as evidenced by China's expansive productivity and the rise of the mini-Putin in Europe. Meanwhile, "cultural Marxists", conscious conspirators are being accused of infiltrating state and cultural institutions. This worthless platitude you're giving us is already wrong anyway: These people see themselves as rising champions with a real destiny against the hegemony of cultural Marxism and the decay of civilization. The decay of civilization is NOT perceived as an imminent threat but a problem that we are finally, imminently able to deal with. So what does this mean? That there is truth even in their relative subjectivity: In their pathology alone it is clear they perceive themselves as champions of destiny, while for those of us at the "opposite end of the spectrum", we see clear signs of a coming dark age.

Ideological - or for Links "intellectual" difference is NEVER a matter of completely contradictory realities *as such* - it derives from real processes of the real, absolute truth is identifiable in them. For reactionaries - this is IMPOSSIBLE in perceiving external subjectivity. There has to be a conscious conspiracy "brainwashing" the masses, forcing them in a state of near-psychosis, they see themselves (all reactionaries for that matter) as taking the "red pill". Communists don't do this however: everything is rationally explicable and real external subjectivity is necessarily articulated as a pre-requisite to its own foundations. There is no necessity of consciously "red pilling" - the world is not perceived as an other we have to completely oppose, rather our struggle derives from its circumstances. So there is truth in the identification of Marxism and ruling liberalism - our opposition internalizes the achievements of liberalism and fights it as supersession - their opposition is REACTIONARY.

Then again, as someone who speaks the tongue of a bourgeois ideologue convinced of an actual dichotomy of two opposing "spectrums", it isn't surprising that you dismiss real analysis for the banter of engaged subjectivity.